PDA

View Full Version : New Federal gun ban?


Grouch
09-17-2007, 4:09 PM
http://www.clintongunban.com/FactSheets.aspx?i=213

http://www.nraila.org/hr1022.html

McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban


On Feb. 14, 2007, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes." McCarthy`s choice of words warrants explanation.

Obviously, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the now-discredited
Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that studies by the Congressional Research Service, congressionally-mandated studies, and studies by state and local law enforcement agencies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

Reauthorizing the Clinton ban would be bad enough. The guns that it temporarily banned--very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection--are still used in only a small percentage of crime. But McCarthy`s "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.

Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s, and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip.

Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn`t "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

bwiese
09-17-2007, 4:20 PM
Old news, why did you post it?

Doesn't have a chance in passing (sure, we should always be wary, of course).

Our battle is here in California, let's stay focused and not worry about current irrelevancies.

SemiAutoSam
09-17-2007, 4:43 PM
I wish I could be as sure as you seem to be about the NEW AWB but im not.

If a democrat wins or is elected to the presidency I would almost bet GOLD BULLION that there will be a NEW AWB and if not the 1022 then another one drafted by one of the nutcases in congress.

With a stacked house of democrats and a democrat president in office if it Clinton or Obama I would call it a 80% chance that they would put through a AWB.

What gives you the idea that they wouldn't do this ?

because the dems lost seats after the 1994 AWB ?

I hope your basing it on more than that.

Old news, why did you post it?

Doesn't have a chance in passing (sure, we should always be wary, of course).

Our battle is here in California, let's stay focused and not worry about current irrelevancies.

bwiese
09-17-2007, 4:52 PM
Last elections gains by democrats were often by pro-gun democrats (perfect example: Webb in VA), or a wishy-washy Repub got replaced by a similar Democrat.

All in all, it's a better Federal pro-gun environment than it's been for years.

Notice how nothing happened after VA Tech?

And yes, in part the 1994 AWB showed how vulnerable dems were to unified gun owners. Notice we also took down the Speaker of the House.

SemiAutoSam
09-17-2007, 5:00 PM
I agree that it really seems like more of a Pro gun environment. I guess im just not 100% sure that they will not try another end run and or when they have a majority of seats and the person in the white house turns out to be a dem.

I guess I could paint the picture of being a wounded bloody surfer in a tank full of sharks and expecting none of them to strike at you.

I dont trust them one bit I know they have an agenda and disarming the American public is one of the steps to what I feel is in the direction of their master plan.

Time will tell.

Last elections gains by democrats were often by pro-gun democrats (perfect example: Webb in VA), or a wishy-washy Repub got replaced by a similar Democrat.

All in all, it's a better Federal pro-gun environment than it's been for years.

Notice how nothing happened after VA Tech?

And yes, in part the 1994 AWB showed how vulnerable dems were to unified gun owners. Notice we also took down the Speaker of the House.

CCWFacts
09-17-2007, 5:07 PM
I agree, this is one of those bills that she introduces so she can say to her constituents, "look what I did, and look what those evil Republicans did". It has ZERO chance of passing. The last AWB passed by only one vote, and it was milder, and there was a much more favorable composition of Congress, and a Democratic president who was strongly pro-ban. Now they have the thinest possible margin in Senate, and lots of them are pro-gun Democrats. This has zero zero zero chance of passing. Not even the Dems really want this to be passed because they know what it did to them last time. Except, there are some Dems like Feinstein etc who don't care at all about the political consequences of gun control. But those who are saner, and who are more worried about their seats, don't want to see gun control come up.

Let's focus on California where we really do have problems.

Charliegone
09-17-2007, 5:11 PM
Tucker Carlson: Madam Representative, what's a barrel shroud?
Rep. McCarthy: Well you know Tucker...blah blah (ignores question)
Tucker Carlson: Madam, do you know what a barrell shroud is?
Rep. McCarthy:..oohh I don't know..it's a shoulder thing that goes up.

How the hell does she expect it to pass when even she doesn't know what a freakin barrel shroud is....geez Gun control advocates:rolleyes:

CCWFacts
09-17-2007, 5:18 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Precious

.22guy
09-17-2007, 5:32 PM
I love the classic liberal way she ignores his question. What a dummy.

AJAX22
09-17-2007, 6:07 PM
while its true that this type of legislation has a snoball's chance in heck of passing today, in 2000 the patriot act wouldn't have gotten passed either.

I'm not fully convinced that in the next two years the status quo will be maintained.

of course it won't matter to us if we can't buy a handgun or ammo anyway because our govener decided to sign the new bills into law because we were debating other stuff when we should be calling.

Plan long term, Act NOW!

Technical Ted
09-17-2007, 6:14 PM
I agree, this is one of those bills that she introduces so she can say to her constituents, "look what I did, and look what those evil Republicans did".
She was handpicked by the Democratic Senatorial hierarchy to front this bill in the Senate because they thought they could play the sympathy card since her husband and son had been killed (albeit by a shooter toting an illegal handgun on a New York subway and not a centerfire semiautomatic rifle).

The Democratic Congressional hierarchy had previously tried to pass a very similar bill (based on SB23) through congress--I don't recall the time frame or bill number--with a New Jersey or New York Congressman as the "author" and Pelosi as one of the co-authors.

The fact that McCarthy couldn't and didn't answer Tucker Carlson's question directly at first and correctly at last simply shot the sponsors in the foot.

Scarecrow Repair
09-17-2007, 6:18 PM
I love the classic politician's way she ignores his question. What a dummy.

Fixed it for ya. Unless you think conservatives never evade questions.

bulgron
09-17-2007, 6:58 PM
Anyone who thinks the Dems won't try more gun control at the federal level just needs to look at the gun control they're desperate to pass in California. We're their laboratory.

It is a fundamental platform position for the Dem party to disarm the American people. That they found "pro-gun" democrats to elect from some states is just cover for their gun control agenda. What they're hoping is that we'll let our guard down long enough to gain control of all of government, and therefore pass some serious anti gun legislation.

They don't care what the consequences are to their party if they do this. The position is based on emotion, not logic.

The next election is all about the presidency because the presidency ultimately controls the courts. If the Dems win, the courts will go left again. If the Republicans win (except for Giuliani), they'll continue to go right and we'll cement the gains we stand to make in the Heller case.

Don't let your guard down. Ever. The Democratic leadership is like a mugger in the park, and you are their prey.

ca_bubba11
09-17-2007, 7:03 PM
So what do you do if you don't support other things that the current bunch of Republicans stand for ? Sorry, there are others things that are as or more important to me than guns. I do not think we can afford another Republican presidency. The current bunch of Republicans are not true conservatives anymore. I will not be voting for them. If that makes a traitor to the pro-gun cause, so be it. I am not going to vote for Hillary or Obama either.

bulgron
09-17-2007, 7:16 PM
So what do you do if you don't support other things that the current bunch of Republicans stand for ? Sorry, there are others things that are as or more important to me than guns. I do not think we can afford another Republican presidency. The current bunch of Republicans are not true conservatives anymore. I will not be voting for them. If that makes a traitor to the pro-gun cause, so be it. I am not going to vote for Hillary or Obama either.

The way I see it, it's way better to have one party in control of congress (doesn't matter which one) and another party in control of the presidency, than it is to have one party in control of the whole enchilada.

After all, the Republicans didn't really go all corrupt until they had control of everything.

Same thing with the Dems.

So I'm guessing the Dems will continue to control congress. As a result, I'm pretty much going to vote Republican for President this next time around, unless the Republicans put up a real turkey.

For what it's worth, in the past I've voted for Dems based on other issues. But as time goes on and the assault on the 2A worsens in this state, I'm less and less willing to do that, at least on a state and local level.

hoffmang
09-17-2007, 7:20 PM
Uhh, hate to point out the obvious, but her bill is unconstitutional in DC right now. Thanks to DC being "cute," they've conceded that there is an individual right to own functional long guns in the home. That's the law of the land in DC, the home district of the Federal government.

Between that and the fact that the Senate is actually a pro-gun majority (don't let the little letters fool ya) there is not a whole lot to worry about at the Federal level.

Instead we should be starting to press the NRA to push CCW reciprocity or ammunition interstate commerce preemption.

-Gene

xenophobe
09-17-2007, 7:21 PM
Unless SCOTUS upholds the original Parker v. DC ruling, HR 1022 has no chance in hell of being enacted.

This topic is old and has been discussed numerous times to death.

:xeno:

CCWFacts
09-17-2007, 7:45 PM
I'd love to be able to vote for the Grand Old Party, namely the Republican party of old, which really stood for limited government, keeping government out of our lives, and low taxes. The current version of Republicanism is a sad parody, based on bible-thumping, beware-of-gay-marriage, and "remember 9/11". All things that have zero, or negative, resonance with me.

bulgron
09-17-2007, 8:10 PM
I'd love to be able to vote for the Grand Old Party, namely the Republican party of old, which really stood for limited government, keeping government out of our lives, and low taxes. The current version of Republicanism is a sad parody, based on bible-thumping, beware-of-gay-marriage, and "remember 9/11". All things that have zero, or negative, resonance with me.

I agree. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go voting Democrat, especially in local and state elections.

I've done enough of that, and look what it got me. Microstamping. Yay.

CCWFacts
09-17-2007, 8:21 PM
I haven't voted for any Democrat at any level in a long time. I'm in an area that is probably 80% solid Democrat (one of the most Democratic zipcodes in the country), and I often vote for the Republican candidate, especially in state-level offices, to show Repubs that there is viable support here and they need to campaign. What has happened is Repubs are becoming so marginalized from power here that they end up not even campaigning. Voting Repub shows them, "hey we're still here!"

Otherwise I vote Libertarian. But never Democrat.

.22guy
09-17-2007, 9:39 PM
Fixed it for ya. Unless you think conservatives never evade questions.

I'm sure they do. But the liberals I've talked to (read: argued with) tend to do that a lot. Ignore the question. Pretend they don't understand the question or they couldn't hear you. Change the subjects.

Just my opinion. But you are certainly correct about politicians as well. :chris::mad:

Grouch
09-17-2007, 10:31 PM
Old news, why did you post it?
.

Because searching for it came up with nothing. :rolleyes:

zeister
09-18-2007, 12:47 PM
Here in Canada the anti-firearms ownership folks are known by the Three Horsemen - scare mongering, propaganda and ignorance. Our national Liberal Party is conservative and the national Conservative Party is liberal or at least reasonable on the question of firearms ownership. We have no Second Amendment but then we never thought we needed it - still don't! Yes, we have an historic gun culture and are now fighting to keep it. Look at the history of gun control in Canada, the U.K and Australia. There is all the ammunition you need. Good luck in your fight and say one for us.

P.S. Our national Parliament has an interesting wrinkle. We have an all party Outdoors Caucus that represents gun ownership interests. The members come from both the Commons and the Senate. Perhaps you could lobby for the same.

CCWFacts
09-18-2007, 2:38 PM
We have an Outdoor Caucus right here in CA, and it does in fact have a Democrat on it.

http://senweb03.senate.ca.gov/outdoorsportingcaucus/

Bakersfield Democrat Nicole Parra (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a30/) is a vice-chair. It just so happens that her district has a very high rate of CCW issuance. If there's one person in the state leg. who could lead a CCW reform effort, I think it's Assemblywoman Parra.